Understanding "ARC", What It Really Is All About

[Sane Person]

I am guessing that what you mean by "real" is the "objective reality" that we share and can't really change (physical universe, energy, matter, space, time).

And that the "agreed upon reality" is any shared "subjective reality".

Yes? No?

On the last sentence, yes I share it!

Scientology is entirely designed to get people to chip in with their "agreement", and to thereby "create" this whole other "reality" (the Scientology paradigm and worldview). ARC is a primary tool used to suck people in and to get them to "agree".

The result, of course, are people (church members) who "understand" along and within a very rigid, fixed, slanted and biased framework of Scientology beliefs, attitudes, and opinions.

Yes, by "real" meant subjective reality and be shared I meant accepted reality which may or may not coincide with objective reality. Scientologists don't seem to understand the difference.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Here is my view of reality.

(1) Perception is an interpretation of what is out there. For an individual one's perception is the actuality.

True! - Albeit with caution applied to definition of 'actuality'.. Here it means what you think, or is convinced, is.

(2) But when one is not certain about that actuality, one seeks agreement from others to establish certainty. This certainty then becomes one's reality.

But uncertainty or 'doubt' is not a crime or neccesarily unpleasant. It is a good thing to always be aware that one might not know or understand. Things might be different regardless of 'agreement'.

(3) Thus, reality is the certainty one gets about one's perception by getting agreement from others.

You're on thin ice with that kind of certainty... To quote Voltaire: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

(4) Reality is something shared. Reality helps one overcome one's doubts about what one perceives (actuality).

Be careful with the word 'reality'! - The word usually means what actually is.. Which may be different from what you think.

(5) The essence of reality is agreement.

No, that's 'agreed upon' perception you are describing. Like when the peoples of Earth 'agreed' that it was flat. I'm rather sure it was round anyway..

(6) Reality is the substitute for one's lack of certainty in one's own perception (actuality). Reality becomes unnecessary to the degree one acquires confidence in one's own perception.

Hmm.. Vin, you are using Hubbards devaluated definition of the word and concept of 'reality'.. But you are illuminating the obvious risks inherent in 'acquiring confidence in one's own perception' on the basis of 'agreement'

(8 ) Agreement may boost one's perception and make it more real. Or, agreement may suppress one's perception and make it unreal.

Well, which is it? - (I didn't expect you to end up with making 'agreement' insignificant? - Harh.. But I agree on that!)

(9) Unreality comes about when one invalidates one's perception (actuality).

Does it? - How about when you 'realize' what really is? - Discovering the truth?

Allright, this IS why I keep harping on doubt and skeptism being a sure sign of a working mind. It might be a shock to discover that the Earth is not flat, but round. So there might be a spell of 'unreality' because one cannot believe that the planet is really round. But discovery of the REAL reality is both good and fun.. Unless you are in the midst of a gang of religious zealots, who'd all 'agreed' on the misconception and also have 'agreed' to burn you at the stake for blasphemy.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

The problem is LRH intentionally didn't differentiate what is real and what is merely "agreed upon reality". I guess because ultimately because Scientology takes on a kind of group solipsistic world view that revolves around him.
However, one's personal perspective is the only channel one may access to reality and so I can understand the importance played to personal perception. It's a pity that Scientology isn't really designed to help people understand this but to make them slaves to its ridiculous machine. At least that's "my reality". Anyone share it?

I sure do!

In fact I think that Hubbards manipulations with the concepts of 'reality' is at the core of the fraud. It's a kind of 'mind virus' designed to entrap you in Hubbardian mindboggeling. To foul up your logic and critical sense..

Works along with persuading you to doubt your own mind (full of engrams and implants that you cannot be aware of.).. And to add mayhem to insult, make doubt a crime!

 

[Vinaire]

True! - Albeit with caution applied to definition of 'actuality'.. Here it means what you think, or is convinced, is.But uncertainty or 'doubt' is not a crime or neccesarily unpleasant. It is a good thing to always be aware that one might not know or understand. Things might be different regardless of 'agreement'.You're on thin ice with that kind of certainty... To quote Voltaire: "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."Be careful with the word 'reality'! - The word usually means what actually is.. Which may be different from what you think.No, that's 'agreed upon' perception you are describing. Like when the peoples of Earth 'agreed' that it was flat. I'm rather sure it was round anyway..Hmm.. Vin, you are using Hubbards devaluated definition of the word and concept of 'reality'.. But you are illuminating the obvious risks inherent in 'acquiring confidence in one's own perception' on the basis of 'agreement'Well, which is it? - (I didn't expect you to end up with making 'agreement' insignificant? - Harh.. But I agree on that!)Does it? - How about when you 'realize' what really is? - Discovering the truth?

Allright, this IS why I keep harping on doubt and skeptism being a sure sign of a working mind. It might be a shock to discover that the Earth is not flat, but round. So there might be a spell of 'unreality' because one cannot believe that the planet is really round. But discovery of the REAL reality is both good and fun.. Unless you are in the midst of a gang of religious zealots, who'd all 'agreed' on the misconception and also have 'agreed' to burn you at the stake for blasphemy.

Words have different definitions. One must define one’s terms before building arguments on them. Let me define my terms as follows:

ACTUALITY = One’s own interpretation of what is out there.

REALITY = One’s interpretation of what is out there as influenced by agreement with others.

(1) Reality comes about as a part of living in a society.

(2) People from different societies have different realities.

(3) Actuality may improve by one’s observation of what is out there, by understanding other people’s viewpoints. But that does not necessarily mean that one is agreeing with others. This is the case in scientific investigations.

(4) Reality could involve agreement, as with the laws of a nation, to get a system working even when one’s actuality may be quite different.

.

 

[Panda Termint]

I think Wiktionary has a better definition of "ACTUALITY" :

actuality (plural actualities)

1. the state of existing; existence
2. the quality of being actual or factual; fact

 

[Vinaire]

I think Wiktionary has a better definition of "ACTUALITY" :

actuality (plural actualities)

1. the state of existing; existence
2. the quality of being actual or factual; fact

Ha! You make me laugh.

How do you know what "existing" or "factual"?

It is your interpretation, isn't it?

.

 

[Panda Termint]

I decided that the road was clear and safe to cross.
I didn't see the car that hit me, it was sort of not really within my interpretation of reality.
I guess you could say that the car was more of an actuality.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Ok, Wiktionary:
-------------------------------------------------
reality (plural realities)

1. The state of being actual or real.

2. A real entity, event or other fact

3. The entirety of all that is real.

4. An individual observer's own subjective perception of that which is real.
-------------------------------------------------

Hmm.. I'm actually surprized by def. #4.. That's Hubbards interpretation.. That 'reality' is some private mental phenomenon..

Well, it's not uncommon to have such conflicting definitions to words.. Depends on context then.. To say: 'My reality' would be def #4. - Whereas to say 'The reality is', refers to to usual definition.

Hubbard tells us that 'reality' is created by agreement.. He is not specific about which definition of 'reality' he's applying.

Indeed, it seems to me that Hubbard tries to fib us the tale that it's ALL reality. Including the makeup of the physical universe.. Ie: That when there was agreement that the Earth was flat it really was flat! - Then, when the agreement about it being round came about, the Earth really became round?

Or as an example in a courtcase.. If the jurors agree that the guy is guilty, then the guy is judged guilty. Reality by agreement: The judges verdict IS reality.. But as we all know, the guy may be innocent just the same.

 

[RogerB]

????

Here is my view of reality.

(1) Perception is an interpretation of what is out there. For an individual one's perception is the actuality.

(2) But when one is not certain about that actuality, one seeks agreement from others to establish certainty. This certainty then becomes one's reality.

(3) Thus, reality is the certainty one gets about one's perception by getting agreement from others.

(4) Reality is something shared. Reality helps one overcome one's doubts about what one perceives (actuality).

(5) The essence of reality is agreement.

(6) Reality is the substitute for one's lack of certainty in one's own perception (actuality). Reality becomes unnecessary to the degree one acquires confidence in one's own perception.

(8 ) Agreement may boost one's perception and make it more real. Or, agreement may suppress one's perception and make it unreal.

(9) Unreality comes about when one invalidates one's perception (actuality).

.

Vin, in my view the above is a good example of why "Thinkingness" and "Symbolizingness" on the Know to Mystery Scale are so low and screw up so much of what they are applied to.

Perception is not "an interpretation." It is the act of reaching to be aware of what is. One of course can "interpret" and even alter what one perceives and/or is there.

Your point 2) is very much from an effect perspective. What about the circumstance wherein one creates or emanates and gains agreement from others with one's creations/emanations? And what about the being certain of the fact and what of your own cause and creations?

Your point 3) will only lead to big time spin in for those who believe, practice and limit themselves to it. It limits you to being a) dependent on others and b) effect of others.

I'll stop here before I get too insulting

Rog

 

[Vinaire]

Vin, in my view the above is a good example of why "Thinkingness" and "Symbolizingness" on the Know to Mystery Scale are so low and screw up so much of what they are applied to.

Perception is not "an interpretation." It is the act of reaching to be aware of what is. One of course can "interpret" and even alter what one perceives and/or is there.

Your point 2) is very much from an effect perspective. What about the circumstance wherein one creates or emanates and gains agreement from others with one's creations/emanations? And what about the being certain of the fact and what of your own cause and creations?

Your point 3) will only lead to big time spin in for those who believe, practice and limit themselves to it. It limits you to being a) dependent on others and b) effect of others.

I'll stop here before I get too insulting

Rog

Sorry, I differ from you.

Perception is interpretation of the the electrical impulses that are reaching the brain.

How does one know that a table is a TABLE?

There is programming in the mind down to the most basic level, my friend.

Now, am I insulting enough?

.

 

[RogerB]

Sorry, I differ from you.

Perception is interpretation of the the electrical impulses that are reaching the brain.

How does one know that a table is a TABLE?

There is programming in the mind down to the most basic level, my friend.

Now, am I insulting enough?

.

Wot? You want to make me dependent on a brain now, or otherwise turn me into one?

Have you ever perceived anything directly as a spiritual Being . . . that is, without the use of eyes or the brain mechanisms? If not, I recommend it as an exercise. It is quite illuminating.

Rog

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Wot? You want to make me dependent on a brain now, or otherwise turn me into one?

Have you ever perceived anything directly as a spiritual Being . . . that is, without the use of eyes or the brain mechanisms? If not, I recommend it as an exercise. It is quite illuminating.

Rog

I don't think I have.. Experienced anything as a spiritual being.. How would I know anyway?

Erh.. Problem is.. I'm a genuine meatball I think...

 

[Vinaire]

I don't think I have.. Experienced anything as a spiritual being.. How would I know anyway?

Erh.. Problem is.. I'm a genuine meatball I think...

Probably you are more perceptive.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Wot? You want to make me dependent on a brain now, or otherwise turn me into one?

Have you ever perceived anything directly as a spiritual Being . . . that is, without the use of eyes or the brain mechanisms? If not, I recommend it as an exercise. It is quite illuminating.

Rog

And what the hell is that? That is an evaluation (interpretation) too.

You simply seem to be holding an idea of a "spiritual being" and an idea of "directly."

I am not done insulting yet!

.

 

[Gadfly]

Differing personal experiences confused by differing personal semantics well explains the last few pages of "discussion" on this thread! :confused2:

Nudge: Anyone want to talk about the OP? How ARC does NOT equal "understanding", how "understandings" are wide & varied, and how the C of S USES ARC to manipulate the agreement and understandings of others?

In fact there are at least as many "understandings" as there are people on the planet! And these CHANGE, moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day. Hubbard was such a goofball to pretend to talk so "knowingly" and "educatedly" about "understanding". What he DID understand is that people can be (easily) tricked into accepting various understandings promoted and pushed by others, especially along an avenue of careful and well-designed indoctrination.

 

[spbill]

Wot? You want to make me dependent on a brain now, or otherwise turn me into one?

Have you ever perceived anything directly as a spiritual Being . . . that is, without the use of eyes or the brain mechanisms? If not, I recommend it as an exercise. It is quite illuminating.

I suppose a person could perceive anything.
Some even perceive God
Bill

 

[Vinaire]

Differing personal experiences confused by differing personal semantics well explains the last few pages of "discussion"! :confused2:

Nudge: Anyone want to talk about the OP? How ARC does NOT equal "understanding", how "understandings" are wide & varied, and how the C of S USES ARC to manipulate the agreement and understandings of others?

In fact there are at least as many "understandings" as there are people on the planet! And these CHANGE, moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day. Hubbard was such a goofball to pretend to talk so "knowingly" and "educatedly" about "understanding". What he DID understand is that people can be (easily) tricked into accepting various understandings promoted and pushed by others, especially along an avenue of careful and well-designed indoctrination.

It is not just COS. Just LOOK.

There is simply too much verbosity around here!

.

 

[Sane Person]

I don't think I have.. Experienced anything as a spiritual being.. How would I know anyway?

Erh.. Problem is.. I'm a genuine meatball I think...

If a meat ball, I mean a real meatball, started talking to you and asked you not to eat it, would you think for a moment that that meatball was possessed by a spirit? It amazes me how people question their spirituality when with out it they wouldn't be able to question anything at all.
You do not have a spirit. You are a spirit. It is your very life essence. It is all that you see, all that you hear, all that you experience. It is you. For a talking meatball to say it is just a talking meatball is, at least to my ears, silly.

 

[Gadfly]

If a meat ball, I mean a real meatball, started talking to you and asked you not to eat it, would you think for a moment that that meatball was possessed by a spirit? It amazes me how people question their spirituality when with out it they wouldn't be able to question anything at all.
You do not have a spirit. You are a spirit. It is your very life essence. It is all that you see, all that you hear, all that you experience. It is you. For a talking meatball to say it is just a talking meatball is, at least to my ears, silly.

"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."

Most of us understand what THAT means. But also, everything else is equally in the "eyes of the beholder". A "higher truth" involves the notion that everybody "sees", through ones own (largely unconscious) creation and participation, a unique, differing reality, with differing understandings, differing meanings, and differing agreements or disagreements with differing "facts", "realities" and "possibilities".

The "higher truth" involves WHAT does the SEEING, and how and in what ways SEEING "occurs". "Seeing" and "creation" on this level aren't much different.

People get caught up in all types of arguments about the "beauty" and in the "details of the beauty", but they largely forget the most important aspect to it all. The beholder! What is it that is doing the "beholding"?

Call it whatever you want. Play with meanings and definitions. We all do. But the BEST thing to play with is your own experience of yourself AS THE BEHOLDER. And grant everybody else the right and freedom to "behold" however the hell they choose to. Each version will/must be "different". Understanding of course, that many of them will and do behold themselves as some sort of "meatball". :confused2:

That which creates and defines all-that-is can have it be anything it chooses it to be - even a "meatball"!

That which conceives can conceive anything to be just about anything.

As long as you imagine yourself to be an "isolated viewpoint", then you will experience "differing". Within THAT framework there can only be different ways of seeing, interpreting, explaining, defining and experiencing. The only RIGHT EXPLANATION is that what I just described occurs. It is "natural". It is "the way it is".

Limited viewpoints of highly focused conditioned consciousness trying to argue and discuss the "unlimited". It can be interesting, and even humurous to watch.

Damn, now I have done it to! I have gone OFF-TOPIC!

 

[Vinaire]

I suppose a person could perceive anything.
Some even perceive God
Bill

Long time no see, Bill.

It is interesting to see what all different ways some people find to invalidate others.

"Perceiving directly as a spiritual being..." Ha! A person can't express it (maybe he doesn't even know it), yet he uses it to show how developed he is.

How do you perceive directly a table if you have no idea what a table is?

.